Jump to content

Talk:Political career of John C. Breckinridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePolitical career of John C. Breckinridge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2019.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
April 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 26, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 2, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the political career of John C. Breckinridge included service as Vice President of the United States and Confederate States Secretary of War?
Current status: Featured article

Review comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Sorry to have been so slow in my review. Looks quite good, generally, a few things:

General comment: Consider having the chronological run-through of political career before the discussion of views. That way people are more familiar with the events you speak of in there. Just a suggestion.
Lede
  • "almost three decades". Checking the article, it seems to be 23 years, 1828 to 1851. Perhaps "almost a quarter century"? And were there really Democrats before that?
  • Your capitalization of "vice president" looks to me to be inconsistent.
Formative years
  • "denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts and asserting that states could nullify it" Them, no doubt, not "it".
  • "his friend and law partner," You should probably make clearer that this is the grandson's, not the grandfather's.
Kentucky H of R
  • "As a reward for supporting internal improvements," You use the "i i" phrase in the last sentence, so I would suggest changing the last two words to "these projects".
  • Out of curiosity, were these resolutions on the Compromise of 1850 resolutions instructing Kentucky's senators how to vote? I've got an article planned on the legislative election of senators, and resolutions of instruction are all part of that. Just wondering for future reference.
  • Although I don't have the Heck book in front of me right now, if I remember the chronology correctly, the Compromise of 1850 was more like a list of ideas that formed the basis for a potential compromise than an actual piece of legislation at the time the resolutions were passed, hence the "fair and equitable basis" language. I think they were just kind of saying, "Yeah, we could get behind a plan that looks kinda like that." Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the problem was money". Although this article merely covers the political career, a few timely words on how Breckinridge made a living would be a good idea.
First term
  • Can a percentage or the total votes cast be given? A raw vote margin of victory doesn't give all the necessary info.
  • "Then he denounced Sanders" Strike "then". Also, I'd toss in a "likely" before "Democratic".
  • "Millard Fillmore's re-election". You have not mentioned his succession, and you may get some heat about "re-election"
  • " Fillmore held unclear views on slavery" They were perhaps clear to Fillmore! Perhaps something along the lines that Fillmore had not fully disclosed his views on slavery.
  • "After his maiden speech, Breckinridge took a more active role in the House." More active than what? He spoke on the day he was sworn in!
  • Oops! I was off by a year on the date of his speech. Davis goes into some detail about how newly-elected reps tried to get the floor to say pretty much anything to show that they were doing their jobs (and hence worthy of re-election), contrasting this with Breckinridge, who was apparently admired by his more senior colleagues for his restraint. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Andrew Johnson's Homestead Act," I'd preface it with a "Tennessee Representative" or similar, and call it the Homestead Bill, as it was not enacted until 11 years later, using a pipe.
Second term
  • Introductory paragraph. I'm a bit confused by the sequence of events. Washington Territory was not organized until March 2, 1853. Wouldn't waiting to decline the governorship leave very little time for re-election? You need to be clearer about the month and year that these elections took place in (including for the first term). I'm gathering that like Tennessee, they sometimes didn't bother to have the election until the term started, after all, Congress wasn't going to convene until December. But that doesn't explain his maiden speech. Also … Governor of Washington Territory .. in 1853 (I've just read one of Ezra Meeker's memoirs) when there was nothing there … that seems like a reward you'd rather not have because it would sideline you from national politics. It also makes me wonder why he would seek it at all.
  • Well, hopefully, the maiden speech issue has been cleared up. The dates of the 1851 election were August 3-4, 1851; I would assume the 1853 elections were in a similar time frame. I don't have the exact date of the election that took Crittenden out of the running as a competitor – only the year – but he had to be elected by the General Assembly, which convenes January through March or so, unless he was elected in a special session. As for Governor of Washington Territory, I know that by the end of Breckinridge's second House term, his wife was pushing him to leave national politics anyway, so that sentiment might have already been present in 1853. Also, financial troubles were probably a factor again. Being one of the first lawyers in that area could have made for a lucrative practice a few years down the road. That's guesswork on my part, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he decided to decline it " The "and" should not be there.
  • Given that you are detailing the other side's shenanigans towards Breckinridge in his second congressional election, if he also indulged in such things then, and if the source says so, you should mention it. As one of Hanna's biographers put it, this was the way the game was played on both sides.
  • It's very ambiguous. Davis says that Breckinridge's friends raised money "to counteract the damage the Whigs were doing". While he goes as far as to give the amounts Letcher supporters were paying people to not vote or to vote for Letcher, this one statement is all that is said about how Breckinridge used the few thousand dollars he raised. If the estimates of $30,000 to $100,000 raised by the Whigs are accurate, it is difficult to believe the $4,000 to $5,000 raised by Breckinridge could effectively combat widespread vote buying, but who knows? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Democracy". Suggest a footnote or parenthetical indicating that he was talking about the party. That may be lost on a 21st century reader
  • 80 out of 234 re-elected is very low by today's standards. If it was less so by the standards of the time, I would say so.
  • "Ways and Means committee" I would think you would capitalize the C as part of the usual name of the committee.
  • "Southerners thwarted his previous attempts" Perhaps "Southerners had thwarted his previous attempts to accomplish this", perhaps tossing in the fact that the territories might become free states, helping to outvote the South. Also, you sort of dance around the point that the K-N act was passed, but you never quite close the deal on it. You should also explain how it was the South did not block the K-N act, as you've mentioned that they thwarted Douglas's previous attempts.
  • "Had it taken place, Breckinridge could have been removed from the House; the 1850 Kentucky Constitution " this was long before Powell v. McCormick, of course, but would a clause in a state constitution have really removed him from office? I can see state officials might have kept him off the ballot in future elections.
  • It's impossible to say for sure, of course, but I think it's possible. If he became ineligible for the office by participating in a duel, the seat could have been declared vacant and a new election ordered by the General Assembly. As evidenced by the subsequent gerrymandering of the district, the Whigs had both the votes and the motivation to take such an action. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paid only debts those related to powers" Issue here.
  • "removing over 500 Democrats and adding several hundred Whigs " perhaps "substituting several hundred Whig voters for Democrats by replacing … "
  • "The ascension of the Know Nothing Party further hindered Breckinridge's re-election chances." A few words as to why would be good. I'd also toss a "nativist" or "anti-immigrant" in front of the party name.
  • "the salary was insufficient" If I'm correct that the minister was expected to pay for many of his own expenses out of the salary, that might be worth a mention.
Davis strikes a glancing blow at this, but doesn't say it outright. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Vice President
  • "presidential elector " When? Surely not in 1856? And if before then, why would that carry particular weight of itself?
  • Davis says that, at the state Democratic convention in Louisville in 1856, Powell supporters had the pleasure of "seeing Breckinridge appointed a state elector and delegate to Cincinnati". Not sure how else to read it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tennessee's Andrew Johnson" "Tennessee Governor Andrew Johnson". I really don't see the need to link the name of states, generally, except for in this article probably Kentucky and possibly Iowa.
  • "electoral college " caps, I think.
  • If the prayer resolution session was the only time B&B were alone, who was present the other times they met? The Secretary to the President?
  • "a fourth defeated Johnson's Homestead Act." Homestead Bill, I suggest. I mention this incident in Johnson's article. Also, does the VP ever actively debate? Especially the 19th century vice president? I'm a bit taken aback by the suggestion that but for his desire to be seen as an impartial moderator, he'd have been fighting in the trenches of Senate debate. I'm not even sure he was allowed to rule on questions raised to the chair, because I know Hobart changed that.
  • I didn't really mean to imply that a desire to be impartial motivated his non-interference. Certainly, the rules of debate dictated that, something that clearly frustrated Breckinridge. Davis writes that he had much more influence as a legislator under Pierce than as vice-president under Buchanan. But I also wanted to note that, despite his strong feelings on the issues of the day, he tried – and succeeded in the opinion of most – to be impartial in his duties. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Kansas's approval" perhaps "the voters of Kansas Territory's approval"
  • You should toss a year into the final paragraph, two if the events happened in different years.
Prez election of 1860
  • "they adjourned" refers to convention, so should be "it". I'd make it clearer that Guthrie was also a Kentuckian, perhaps by adding "as favorite son" after his first mention.
  • "On June 25, Jefferson Davis" His famous office so blinds people to the rest of his political career that I think you have to throw a "Mississippi Senator" in there.
  • " his strength in the south" Consistently with the usage of this article, should be South.
  • " rather than a compromise Democrat" reads strangely, you might want to frame it if the source supports about an unwillingness to vote for a slavery supporter, or possibly a Southerner.
  • "Reminding the audience that Douglas wanted the Supreme Court to decide the issue of slavery in the territories, he pointed out that Douglas then denounced the Dred Scott ruling and laid out a means for territorial legislatures to circumvent it.Reminding the audience that Douglas wanted the Supreme Court to decide the issue of slavery in the territories, he pointed out that Douglas then denounced the Dred Scott ruling and laid out a means for territorial legislatures to circumvent it." I'm not sure I see the relevance of this to B's candidacy.
  • Check over your capitalization of "Southern" to ensure it is as you would have it (there's at least one, in another section, "pro-Southern", which looks a bit odd to me. Also, "southern states" is inconsistently capitalized.)
Aftermath
  • " on a compromise" strike, not needed.
  • "Governor Magoffin refused to endorse the resolution, preventing its enforcement." Short of with a gun, it was difficult to see how they would enforce it anyway, which was the problem with resolutions of instruction and the like.
That's all I got. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Since I got my new computer, I've been spending an inordinate amount of time playing Civilization V instead of doing Wikipedia. Have responded to some comments above. Hope to get to the rest soon. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to. Some may need follow-up. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with what you've done in response to my comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Political career of John C. Breckinridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lots of spots where the prose needs work.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I forgot that you did the GA review for Cabell, too. The Breckinridges are an interesting lot. If I ever finish John C., I may do some work on his nephew, William Campbell Preston Breckinridge, next. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the items where I'm pretty sure I address the concern satisfactorily. I left some others pending your feedback. If they are to your satisfaction, go ahead and strike them if you want. A few will almost certainly merit some further discussion. Thanks for the quick and thorough review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some more and have a few replies on a few more. Suggest, as usual, getting someone else to copyedit for FAC as I'm only sorta good at it. I can pick apart the context with the best of them though! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, basically those changes look good. Just waiting on the statue/photograph issue for GA... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed that and the other comments I didn't get to before. Hope it's all kosher now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political career of John C. Breckinridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]